Appreciate the Works of a MoFo!

My earliest memory, other than various instances of me just crawling on the ground or what I think was my first time walking, is me learning to play the original Super Mario Bros. on my mother’s NES. Though video games have been accepted by most today as an entertainment medium that are here to stay, some people such as the late Roger Ebert denounced video games saying they are not art. But what is art to begin with? Why have some people accepted videogames, paintings, music, movies, literature as art while some don’t consider some installments in those mediums art? The Oxford American Dictionary says it is “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” So what does it mean?

Before we shall analyze the definition of art and what its limits are, we should give a list of “stuff” that is considered art, and sometimes not. Paintings and other drawings, sculptures, architecture, literature, movies, video games, music and many other practices that I probably haven’t heard of, are considered art by assorted peoples. Literature and music has always been considered art. Movies weren’t considered art when they first were invented but by the 1930’s, very few believed movies were not an art form. Video games are still controversial today in the year 2015, but most probably would call video games art. In the 80’s, 90’s and maybe even earlier this century, there would be a substantial amount of people that wouldn’t call video games art. What does time have to do with something being considered art or not? I’ll get to this later but first, what about fiction?

The art of fiction is probably the most widespread, and diverse, medium in the world. Everyone remembers the fairy tales you were told as a baby, the Disney movies that followed suit a few years later, and adult novels and books in your high school years; but why do people consider certain works of fiction art and others not?

Literature critics that tend to be on the conservative side when they critique a work of fiction on whether it is good or not say a work of fiction needs to have a theme, or at least a purpose to exist otherwise it can’t be art. Action films that have many explosions but don’t explore a lesson would be a prime target against this philosophy.

However, instrumental music never has a theme. There is not a lesson to be learned from listening to a Symphony by Mozart. Music is just sounds made to entertain the listener, yet unlike mindless action films, they are praised as art. Same goes for pretty pictures of landscapes, beaches, etc. They don’t teach us anything but they are praised as art as well. So why can an action movie with little plot not be called art because it has no theme or lesson while instrumental music is praised as art?
A piece of artwork can have a meaning as well as music. Music with lyrics can be religious praising whatever religion or simply having a straightforward lesson like The Beatles’ “All You Need is Love.” or social commentary like Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Have You Ever Seen the Rain?” which is about the air raids on North Vietnam and Cambodia. Paintings can also have symbolism, depict scenes from mythology, wars or just be a portrait of a person. In short having a “theme.”

It should also be mentioned that as time goes on, some people are brought into the world of critiquing while others leave. Mad Max Fury Road has been praised by critics as one of the best films of the year for its great action despite little story. If Fury Road was released decades earlier, critics probably would have hated it for its lack of story, but since it was released today, young people have replaced older critics and since they’re “newer” they have a higher tolerance towards action films with little plot than older folks. However if Fury Road’s action scenes were done poorly, it wouldn’t have been praised, just like a sloppy painting of a meadow isn’t considered art. It failed to do its objective.

That’s what I think art is supposed to do. Art should achieve an objective. An action film’s goal is made to awe the viewer with incredible stunts and fight scenes. A painting’s goal is to awe the viewer with beautiful images. A serious/arthouse film’s goal is to provide social commentary or just have symbolism. If it fails to do its own objective, then it isn’t art. Video games strive for people to achieve goals they couldn’t do in real life, like save a princess or from an evil beast (Mario), fight aliens (Metroid and Halo), fight in a war (Call of Duty) or just commit crime (Grand Theft Auto.) Newer video games do have great stories that can challenge the greatest literature and movies but gameplay is the main point of the videogame. If a video game's gameplay is dismal, than it failed. If a movie wants to show symbolism on a certain topic but the product is self-indulgent and/or doesn’t make sense, the movie failed. If a movie wants to have no story whatsoever, just action scenes, but those action scenes have obvious green screen, obvious stunt doubles and clunky choreography, the movie failed. The goal of music to produce a memorable melody along with varying emotions. If the melody is annoying and the lacking with emotions, than it failed. Oxford said art is “appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” Sheer fun, enjoyment can be a powerful emotion.

The definition of art can not be set in stone like a religious code of conduct as every single person you know has a different taste in fiction, music, drawings etc than you. You may love one movie and hate another while your best friend hates the movie you love and love the movie you hate.

Art; what is my definition?It is an expressive work that entertains, enlighten and/or challenges at least one person in the world. There are no limitations on what art can be. Only limitations on how much the beholder is awed.